|
Here's a prediction: 2 years from now people will still say how some obscure piece of news validates Rossi and how industrial scale production is just around the corner.
OP said:On July 27 2011 04:26 arbitrageur wrote: Nobel Laureate physicist discussing with some semi-skeptics (also physicists) about this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=484427&page=3The poster in question is bjosephson. His full name name is Brian Josephson and is convinced that it's real: "I have little doubt that the Rossi reactor is real and that over the next few months everyone will have to accept this."
6 month on most people still aren't convinced. The pattern will continue repeating itself even without any progress on Rossi's part.
|
On January 16 2012 01:20 ticklishmusic wrote: Far as I understand, the hydrogen is concentrated by infusing it into nickel-- basically the nickel is used to soak up the hydrogen to a really high density/pressure for a relatively small energy cost. The gas particles move too, and so I guess the hydrogen would be at super high pressure/velocity, and velocity is speed is energy. Maybe the saturation is high enough that R (in Coulomb's Law) is sufficiently reduced to allow Coulomb's Barrier to be overcome, with the help of some catalyst or container design..
im afraid there is some confusion about the meaning/definitions of the thermodynamical fuctions of state here. pressure is a force acting on a surface. in the case of gases, this arises from the collisions of gas particles with the walls of a container or any other surface. by bouncing of said walls, momentum is transferred from the gas particles to the wall and a force results. high pressure means either a high number of impacts per time or a large momentum transfer per impact. presure is not directly connected to the velocity of particles in a gas and is not a form of energy! temperature on the other hand is defined by the mean velocity of particles in a gas and as noted above, connected to the total amount of energy in a volume of gas.
on a more basic level, conservation of energy demands that the process mentioned above is impossible. one cannot pay a "relatively small" amount of energy to overcome a positively huge energy barrier - the coulomb barrier in this case.
|
On January 16 2012 00:45 ElMeanYo wrote: something
sounds legit... not
- Low energy Gamma heats lead andlead heats water outside reactor
I thought it didn't give off radiation, but obviously people now told him it doesn't make sense, if he wants to be credible he needs to say gammas are emitted.
- 1 gm of matter (Ni or anything) 23,000 MWH of heat energy – if all global energy is eCat, still only 1% world production of Ni
Great, he figured out Einstein's E=mc². This statement is true, one gram of any matter is equivalent to about 23 GWh of energy, if and only if it is combined with an equal amount of corresponding anti-matter. Now if he managed to create anti-nickel he'd get a nobel prize and make millions off that research alone. So far the largest anti-particles created on earth are anti-helium, and only a few dozen of them, not nearly enough to make use of for commercial purposes.
- Hydrogen cannister? Big surprise. Very likely will work without seperate Hydrogen cannister. Resolved problem by putting a substance inside reactor to produce and recycle Hydrogen. Picograms of H used. Originally, getting certification was big issue. Without H cannister, this is no problem.
Recycling hydrogen that has been used in a nuclear reaction of some sort? It's perpetual motion all over.
- Gamma radiation. Transmutation Ni to Cu is side effect. Evidence of 511 kEV gamma at 180 deg electron positron (antimatter) production. [This is interesting].
Yay finally some physics... sort of. Positrons (anti-electrons) are produced via beta+ decay, nothing special, used in PET in medicine for example. But beta+ decay of nickel would lead to cobalt, not to copper. Or he produces radioactive copper, that decays back into nickel via beta+. Either way a lot of radiation will be produced, and you'll need a thick lead shielding, 3cm of lead will let 1% of 511keV gammas pass, which you probably wouldn't want in your home. Quick estimate: if the gammas are his main form of energy (as he said in the first quote) for 10kW of power he'd need 10^17 511keV gammas per second.
- Investing? What rate will you consider? This is a hypothetical question. When producing 1 million pieces, they will be a warship. Not want to put at risk family savings. Enterprise still risky for many reasons. Can accept investments from big organisations (amounts that are small for them). Hedge funds etc: anything goes wrong, no one will cry. Too early for people to invest in our business. Not consolidated enough for that risk. When well consolidated, will go public.
Sure sounds like he's confident it'll work...
All the other stuff: design details that don't really matter, lots of talk on how he has to focus on getting the production up and can't spend time on conferences and public presentations, afraid of people copying his idea, machines have been working for a while but only in their lab
|
On January 16 2012 02:45 Alvin853 wrote:Yay finally some physics... sort of. Positrons (anti-electrons) are produced via beta+ decay, nothing special, used in PET in medicine for example. But beta+ decay of nickel would lead to cobalt, not to copper. Or he produces radioactive copper, that decays back into nickel via beta+. Either way a lot of radiation will be produced, and you'll need a thick lead shielding, 3cm of lead will let 1% of 511keV gammas pass, which you probably wouldn't want in your home. Quick estimate: if the gammas are his main form of energy (as he said in the first quote) for 10kW of power he'd need 10^17 511keV gammas per second. As you say beta+ decay takes you to cobalt. So maybe the positrons are created through pair production. After a decay of some sort the daughter nuclei is usally left in an excited state which decays via gamma radiation. If the photon has enegies above 5 MeV pair production is the dominant effect. Although im not sure how common it is that nuclei are excited to such energies after a decay or reaction of some sort. Im not that knowledgable in this field but I did a lab where Cobalt decayed to nickel via beta- decay, there we had gamma rays of around 1 MeV. It doesn't sound good if there is a constant production of of positrons in the claimed reaction, then again it didnt say if it was common to detect this gamma radiation or just a rare event. Maybe he mentioned it in the video but haven't seen it yet.
|
On January 16 2012 03:51 Arathe wrote: As you say beta+ decay takes you to cobalt. So maybe the positrons are created through pair production. After a decay of some sort the daughter nuclei is usally left in an excited state which decays via gamma radiation. If the photon has enegies above 5 MeV pair production is the dominant effect. Although im not sure how common it is that nuclei are excited to such energies after a decay or reaction of some sort. Im not that knowledgable in this field but I did a lab where Cobalt decayed to nickel via beta- decay, there we had gamma rays of around 1 MeV. It doesn't sound good if there is a constant production of of positrons in the claimed reaction, then again it didnt say if it was common to detect this gamma radiation or just a rare event. Maybe he mentioned it in the video but haven't seen it yet.
Afaik the claims are: Transmutation to a stable copper isotope. The reaction creates mainly low energy gammas 511 KeV electron/positron pairs have been detected sporadically.
On a different note, the Widow-Larsen theory could be a plausible explanation for these phenomena: http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/ NASA and most others seem to favor it, but Rossi disagrees however and refuses to reveal his own theory for now.
|
On January 16 2012 04:16 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 03:51 Arathe wrote: As you say beta+ decay takes you to cobalt. So maybe the positrons are created through pair production. After a decay of some sort the daughter nuclei is usally left in an excited state which decays via gamma radiation. If the photon has enegies above 5 MeV pair production is the dominant effect. Although im not sure how common it is that nuclei are excited to such energies after a decay or reaction of some sort. Im not that knowledgable in this field but I did a lab where Cobalt decayed to nickel via beta- decay, there we had gamma rays of around 1 MeV. It doesn't sound good if there is a constant production of of positrons in the claimed reaction, then again it didnt say if it was common to detect this gamma radiation or just a rare event. Maybe he mentioned it in the video but haven't seen it yet.
Afaik the claims are: Transmutation to a stable copper isotope. The reaction creates mainly low energy gammas 511 KeV electron/positron pairs have been detected sporadically. On a different note, the Widow-Larsen theory could be a plausible explanation for these phenomena: http://www.springerlink.com/content/77127077754p1788/NASA and most others seem to favor it, but Rossi disagrees however and refuses to reveal his own theory for now.
If what he claims to be the key here is a really unique catalyst, is it possible that he's stabilizing the copper isotope that way? Forgive my ignorance, I'm only in my first term of nuclear physics ^^
|
i just hope they dont box the creation and shelve it till they have a form/bill/law/privatize of making money of it.
|
On January 16 2012 04:36 WOPR wrote: i just hope they dont box the creation and shelve it till they have a form/bill/law/privatize of making money of it. If this is actually cold fusion, privatizing it won't do anything. If it isn't horribly complicated to build, China will mass produce it as they like. Same with other countries, I'd imagine. Well, depending on how much money Rossi would want to make off of it.
|
On January 16 2012 04:36 WOPR wrote: i just hope they dont box the creation and shelve it till they have a form/bill/law/privatize of making money of it.
thats gonna happen 100%
|
On January 16 2012 04:36 WOPR wrote: i just hope they dont box the creation and shelve it till they have a form/bill/law/privatize of making money of it. Watch them do it, just as JP Morgan did it with Teslas' Zero Energy project
|
Report from the World Sustainable Energy Conference 2012 in Geneva, 10-12 Jan 2012
+ Show Spoiler +Thanks to the invitation of conference chairman Gustav Grob, Francesco Celani and I, representing the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, had the opportunity to introduce the state of research in the field, recent developments regarding Rossi/Defkalion, and offer a glimpse into a possible future where energy is provided by Cold Fusion. Francesco told how he and his group tried to disprove CF in 1989, found neutrons, decided to spend some time to see what is happening, and over time became convinced that it's neither fraud nor error, instead something difficult but quite solid. After a very turbulent beginning with poor reproducibility of experiments, the field had by now improved the quality and reproducibility of the results obtained and the most innovative experiments were cross-checked by other groups. He criticized that a confirmation of energy production by NASA in 1989 was not immediately made public, because publication could have helped the feld gain support and funding. The occurence of transmutations was reported and work by Iwamura's group at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which has developed a method for the controlled transmutation of elements, was stressed. But the presentation was focussed on energy production. A history of excess heat production and breakthroughs was given. Two different systems have been studied extensively: the Palladium/Deuterium system, pioneered by Fleischmann/Pons, and the Nickel/Hydrogen system, pioneered by Francesco Piantelli. Both systems have been shown to have potentially large power densities. In designing a working reactor, the materials issue is central. The biggest breakthroughs, according to Francesco, were the use of nano-particles and alloys, both pioneered by Yoshiaki Arata. Excess heat production using a ZrO2-Pd alloy (Arata) was independently reproduced by Akito Takahashi/Akira Kitamura, even though the latter used material from a different, industrial provider. This is remarkable because in CF not all materials behave similarly, not even from the same producer. Recent important results include the finding by NASA that heat was produced not just when Deuterium was loaded into Palladium, which is expected, but also when it was unloaded. Takahashi/Kitamura found a temperature dependency of excess heat prouction using Cu-Ni-Zr alloy. Francesco reported own work in progress that excess heat production in a thin, micro-nano coated Cu-Ni wire was positively correlated with a slight decrease in electrical resistance at room temperature but with a strong decrease at higher temperatures (300-500°C). All in all, experiments using nano-sized materials are highly reproducible. Operation in the gas phase enables higher temperatures which further improves reproducibility. The facts that no greenhouse gases are produced, dangerous radiation or residual radioativity can very likely be completely eliminated, and energy sources are small, are good preconditions for commercial products. Recent, extraordinary claims by Andrea Rossi and Defkalion Green Technologies, who claim to produce energy in the kW-MW range, had to be regarded with both attention and caution. The field was not considering the Rossi/Defkalion claims to be impossible in principle, but they should be verified independently as soon as possible. Apart from the Rossi/Defkalion claims, the quality of experiments worldwide was so high and the results obtained so widespread, that an international program, well funded and based on a multidisciplinary approach, had the possibility to build a device producing even electricity with very low, overall, emissions. I gave an overview of claims by Rossi/Defkalion. Rossi has publically demonstrated a plant generating 1MW heat power and claims to have already sold 14 devices to a military customer and another one to a non-military customer. Within 2012 or 2013 he wants to put one million 10-20kW devices on the market to be able to push the price below 1ct/kWh. As a matter of fact, National Instruments, a company also providing control systems to tokamak Hot Fusion systems, is cooperating with Rossi's US company. The Greek company Defkalion wants to put reactors producing 5-45kW thermal power on the market, starting with the Greek market probably in 2012. Rossi/Defkalion claim to receive safety certificates within 2012. No party has an international patent, Rossi has protection in Italy. According to a trusted source of Jed Rothwell, Defkalion's science, engineering, and equipment are first rate and the upcoming products revolutionary. I concluded that, even though there was no indication of fraud, neither Rossi nor Defkalion had lent their devices for independent testing and that there was no certainty that their devices work as claimed, including long term reliability. If Cold Fusion devices can be turned on and off with the push of a button and work reliably over a long term, they would quickly replace existing heat and electricity sources. Relying on prospects by Rothwell and Arthur C. Clarke, I said that oil and gas used for heating and cooling would be quickly replaced by CF. Much of the energy currently consumed as electricity in water heaters, clothes washer and dryers, and dishwasher, would be supplied directly as heat from CF. A 10kW Cold Fusion heat generator should be sufficient, even for a large house. CF would be an ideal energy source for facility management. A new era of steam engines may be looming on the horizons, with obvious applications like locomotives. Even if CF turned out to be „only“ 10% of the world's energy supply, it would be important. Desalination, the removal of salt from sea water to be used in e.g. agriculture, was an obvious application that could be realized early on. Since it has been shown by Iwamura and others that radioactive elements can be transmuted into stable elements, remediation of nuclear waste is another potential application in the also not too distant future. Because of this potential, some people in the field believe that CF will cause the return of fission power plants. But others, like Rothwell, argue that centralized power production will not be able to compete with home devices on the market. Because of demands for plastics the oil industry would probably have a future until industry is completely turned upside down by the controlled synthesis of desired elements, which Clarke envisions for 2040. Finally, NASA sees CF applications in space travel and for the military. To see if these prospects are realistic, a coherent explanation of the nuclear process was required for mainstream science to take notice. Science policy should be informed about the state of research and fund this kind of research to speed up research and development. Other presentations on the conference dealt with the state of research on other energy sources, the work of NGOs, or the energy strategies of governments. Within the next days recommendations will be worked out to be submitted to the UN's Rio+20 conference held in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro. Haiko Lietz, 15 Jan 2012 http://www.uniseo.org/documents/WSECagenda2.pdfhttp://www.iscmns.org/
Source: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61205.html
|
On January 16 2012 01:38 Nycaloth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 01:20 ticklishmusic wrote: Far as I understand, the hydrogen is concentrated by infusing it into nickel-- basically the nickel is used to soak up the hydrogen to a really high density/pressure for a relatively small energy cost. The gas particles move too, and so I guess the hydrogen would be at super high pressure/velocity, and velocity is speed is energy. Maybe the saturation is high enough that R (in Coulomb's Law) is sufficiently reduced to allow Coulomb's Barrier to be overcome, with the help of some catalyst or container design..
im afraid there is some confusion about the meaning/definitions of the thermodynamical fuctions of state here. pressure is a force acting on a surface. in the case of gases, this arises from the collisions of gas particles with the walls of a container or any other surface. by bouncing of said walls, momentum is transferred from the gas particles to the wall and a force results. high pressure means either a high number of impacts per time or a large momentum transfer per impact. presure is not directly connected to the velocity of particles in a gas and is not a form of energy! temperature on the other hand is defined by the mean velocity of particles in a gas and as noted above, connected to the total amount of energy in a volume of gas. on a more basic level, conservation of energy demands that the process mentioned above is impossible. one cannot pay a "relatively small" amount of energy to overcome a positively huge energy barrier - the coulomb barrier in this case.
I'm being fairly lazy with my physics and chem, sorry. Skipping a few steps in my thought process.
Gas particles do collide with another-- the chances of this do increase at higher density I believe. Increased amount of collisions means more angles at which the things bounce around, more chaos (entropy) which means more energy (in the system), I think.
Conservation of energy is energy is neither created nor destroyed. And well, I don't think it applies as much in nuclear reactions, because the matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.
Rossi's EC lowers the energy barrier, though I don't know how nuclear catalysts work.
|
Ok, I've only studied 4 terms of physics (2 in HS and 2 in university), so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
After following this thread since its inception, I will now change my opinion on the matter from "cautiously and hopefully optimistic" to "99% chance that this is just another elaborate fraud".
Reasons:
1. This guy has a HISTORY of lying/fraud/falsifying results/etc., huge red flag #1.
2. Look at ALL his experiments/public appearances retrospectively on the whole, it has been concluded that although the experiments were promising and would be very difficult to fake, none of them, or even ALL of them as a whole (different experiment setups) proves that his setup is real and not just some elaborate hoax due to the limited information he chooses to reveal at each experiment.
3. In relation to 3, it is WELL WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF ROSSI to design an experiment that would not give away too much information as to jeopardize his financial future from copycats, but would reveal enough to once and for all prove the legitimacy of his device. Why is it that he has not done so, but instead choosing to using different experiment setups that only rule out 1 or 2 hoax possibilities at a time? Massive red flag #2.
4. NOTHING has been concrete, ALL EVIDENCE, be it experiments, words, commercial "success", or whatever that "hints" at the legitimacy of his device has NOT BEEN independently verified, the media and many people just take what he or his associates choose to reveal as "progress", as that's all they have.
5. The timeline of events STINK of another hoax/fraud attempt. It's been months and months since failed promises and inaccurate predictions, a pattern that has had repetitions in history. Red flag #3.
TLDR:
I remember posting in this thread maybe 20 pages back, where my attitude was "great, let's be cautiously optimistic as this has the potential to radically improve the living standards for everyone on Earth!", however, after zealously following the story over the past few months, I drew up the aforementioned 5 reasons and I now believe with 95% certainty that this is just another hoax.
|
On January 14 2012 13:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 13:24 XRaDiiX wrote:On January 14 2012 12:58 woody60707 wrote:On January 14 2012 10:49 XRaDiiX wrote:I found something interesting. On Wikipedia. On October 28, 2011, a 1 MW plant based on the Energy Catalyzer was reported to have been tested by engineer Domenico Fioravanti for an undisclosed customer.[58] According to Fioravanti, the plant released 2,635 kWh during five and a half hours of self sustained mode, an average power of 479 kilowatts – just under half the promised power of one megawatt. The customer reportedly acquired the plant after the test. Independent observers were not allowed to watch the measurements or make their own, and the plant remained connected to a power supply during the test allegedly to supply power to the fans and the water pumps.[59][60][61] Rossi claims to have orders from customers in the US and Europe for thirteen more 1 MW units in addition to the undisclosed customer from the October 28 test. He offers these for sale for $2 million.[62] The Italian popular science magazine Focus reports that 12 additional units are to the same, undisclosed customer, and quoted Rossi: "We are building a 13 MW thermal plant, made of 13 plant such as the one you saw on October 28th: but it's a military research and I can't reveal any further detail, not the name, nor the place, nor the nationality of the customer".[63]... I believe it may be genuine. ... + Show Spoiler +IMO could be big Oil trying to stop them. Or trying to steal the patents reason being why NASA is scrambling to work with LERN and possibly co-operate with Rossi. Looks like There has already been a few buyers at the price of 2 million each of preliminary devices. It also makes sense why he's trying to get it patented and stopping anyone from stealing his patents. He's just being careful so that nobody steals the rights to his technology. Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, described LENR as a "promising" technology and praised the work of Rossi and Focardi.[7] Bushnell also said that they were starting an experiment to test the Widom-Larson theory[8], in which a Heavy electron combines with a proton, through the Weak Nuclear Force (and thus avoiding the Coulomb barrier), creating a neutrino and a neutron. The neutron can then enter a nearby nucleus, causing additional nuclear reactions. On Oct 6, 2011 the US Patent Office published an application by NASA Langley scientist Joseph Zawodny[9] for a patent "Method For Producing Heavy Electrons"[10], which quotes the Widom-Larsen theory [11] and includes "by reference in its entirety" Larsen's Patent No. 7,893,414.
With Neutron+Nickel = Copper On November 23, 2011, in the Massachusetts Statehouse, Andrea Rossi met with the minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate Bruce Tarr and representatives from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts, to explore the prospects for developing and manufacturing the device in Massachusetts, USA. According to Robert Tamarin, the Dean of Science at UML, the representatives were mostly skeptical and only examined the possibilities of manufacturing within Massachusetts in case the technology turns out to work.[65][25] On December 2011 Rossi stated that he had passed ten thousand pre-orders for a consumer version of the Energy Catalyzer and that he was already aiming for mass-scale production of it and electricity generation with it.[66] Video of NASA trying to steal/use/patent the same technology Rossi's E-Cat is using.http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.htmlIt' feels good to show all the doubters of this technology that this seems to be materializing and may actually be the real deal. Hopefully Big Oil doesn't stop them.... I'm sorry sir, but how can you read that and say "I believe it may be genuine" When you go to a magic show, do you really believe he really pulled a rabbit from a hat? No need for an Independent check of the hat, the rabbit was in there the whole time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off NASA doesn't steal, they would with the private sector to commercialized there inventions. A cute analogy but we will see who is wrong and right in the end and there's nothing wrong with believing what he has may be genuine. The difference between us is this: I won't be wrong for being skeptical of his invention. If it doesn't work, you will be wrong for believing in it when it didn't. Skepticism isn't saying "it doesn't work." Skepticism is saying, "he hasn't proven that it works." Which is true; at this point in time, he has not proven that it does. If tomorrow he does, then the statement will still be true. If it doesn't work however, you will have always been wrong, because your belief is that it did work when it in fact did not. See the difference? Show nested quote +Especially considering the powers that may want to stop him from completing his device and making it available to the public if it does indeed do what he says it does.
Look at it this way do you believe the powers that control the energy sections propaganda or do you believe someone who may have possibly revolutionized the way we can gather energy. This is pure conspiracy theory garbage. "The powers" are trying to stop him. Ooohhh! Fear "the powers!" Fear them! Your mad ramblings about "the powers" do not change the fact that the man has produced virtually no independently verifiable evidence for what he claims to have done. Conspiracy theory crap doesn't change that simple fact: there is no evidence of his machine working. Yes, I can accept that if he found a way to produce cheap energy, he would play things close to the vest. Not so much to avoid "the powers" as simply to make sure that he gets paid for cornering the global energy market and taking over Alpha Cent- the world. If it were me, I might do something similar. But if I did, I would also be completely understanding and patient with the fact that people on the outside have no reason to accept what I've done with the virtually no independently verifiable evidence I've provided thus far. I would expect skepticism at every turn, because that's what I choose to do by keeping things hidden. Show nested quote +I think we should be a little skeptical of course but it seems everyone wants to bury his work because it doesn't match with how science believes the physical world can work.
But theories are mean't to be broken. Theories are made to explain things. If facts are revealed that are contradictory to those theories, then new theories must replace or augment the old ones to explain all of the relevant facts. You don't "break" theories because of what some guy claims. You only "break" them because of what some guy can prove with actual independently verifiable facts. Thus far, there are no independently verifiable facts on his side.
The energy corporations wouldn't bat an eye to silence buy-off anyone with such a possible device.
It's actually common sense if you think about it because of how their company would become obsolete if this device actually works.
So you might wanna think before uttering ignorance again and they also likely have ties with most of the main-stream press.
Including science/physics publishers and what not. $$$ the Energy companies have a lot of it at their disposal. They also have the most to lose if some revolutionary invention were to render their energy monopoly obsolete.
So use common sense.
|
The person who uses conspiracy as a evidence calls other people ignorant. Pure gold, what would I do for fun if this thread didn't exist? Seriously people, Can't you put up a Paypal account so we at least can donate some money? The entertainment in this thread is to good to be free!
|
I'm really hoping these guys aren't fakes and that this can take away some of the worlds dependence on fossil fuels, imagine what would happen if all the oil dried up tomorrow
|
On January 16 2012 13:19 Fallians wrote:I'm really hoping these guys aren't fakes and that this can take away some of the worlds dependence on fossil fuels, imagine what would happen if all the oil dried up tomorrow
But oil isn't going to dry up tomorrow.
What if the sun miraculously disappeared!
|
On January 16 2012 13:39 Papulatus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 13:19 Fallians wrote:I'm really hoping these guys aren't fakes and that this can take away some of the worlds dependence on fossil fuels, imagine what would happen if all the oil dried up tomorrow But oil isn't going to dry up tomorrow. What if the sun miraculously disappeared!
Then we would NEED Rossi's invention, or we'd all be fucked (even more so than we would be anyway) within a few years lol (ignoring the fact that we'd probably die much sooner due to shifting orbits and collisions and whatnot).
CF should in theory, generate enough power to sustain a population in the millions on Earth, no?
|
the customer is probably china as they got the money and are willing to buy everthing that could give them more energy. (?)
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
|
|
|
|